RES aaJUDICATA

Submitted aaby: aaSharmila aaChandran

 Res Judicata
aa

“the aarule… aawhile aafounded aaon aaancient aaprecedent aais

aadictated aaby aaa aawisdom aawhich aais aafor aaall aatime”
1

Section aa11 aaNo aaCourt aashall aatry aaany aasuit aaor aaissue aain aawhich aathe aamatter aadirectly
aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aahas aabeen aadirectly aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aain aaa
aaformer aasuit aabetween aathe aasame aaparties, aaor aabetween aaparties aaunder aawhom aathey aaor
aaany aaof aathem aaclaim, aalitigating aaunder aathe aasame aatitle, aain aaa aaCourt aacompetent aato
aatry aasuch aasubsequent aasuit aaor aathe aasuit aain aawhich aasuch aaissue aahas aabeen
aasubsequently aaraised, aaand aahas aabeen aaheard aaand aafinally aadecided aaby aasuch aaCourt. aa

Explanation aaI: aaThe aaexpression aa“former aasuit” aashall aadenote aaa aasuit aawhich aahas aabeen
aadecided aaprior aato aathe aasuit aain aaquestion aawhether aaor aanot aait aawas aainstituted aaprior
aathereto. aa

Explanation aaII: aaFor aathe aapurposes aaof aathis aasection, aathe aacompetence aaof aaa aaCourt
aashall aabe aadetermined aairrespective aaof aaany aaprovisions aaas aato aaa aaright aaof aaappeal
aafrom aathe aadecision aaof aasuch aaCourt. aa

Explanation aaIII: aaThe aamatter aaabove aareferred aato aamust aain aathe aaformer aasuit aahave
aabeen aaalleged aaby aaone aaparty aaand aaeither aadenied aaor aaadmitted, aaexpressly aaor
aaimpliedly, aaby aathe aaother. aa

Explanation aaIV: aaAny aamatter aawhich aamight aaand aaought aato aahave aabeen aamade aaground
aaof aadefense aaor aaattack aain aasuch aaformer aasuit aashall aabe aadeemed aato aahave aabeen aaa
aamatter aadirectly aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aain aasuch aasuit. aa

Explanation aaV: aaAny aarelief aaclaimed aain aathe aaplaint, aawhich aais aanot aaexpressly aagranted
aaby aathe aadecree, aashall, aafor aathe aapurposes aaof aathis aasection, aabe aadeemed aato aahave
aabeen aarefused. aa

Explanation aaVI: aaWhere aapersons aalitigate aabona aafide aain aarespect aaof aaa aapublic aaright
aaor aaof aaa aaprivate aaright aaclaimed aain aacommon aafor aathem aaand aaothers, aaall aapersons
aainterested aain aasuch aaright aashall, aafor aathe aapurposes aaof aathis aasection, aabe aadeemed aato
aaclaim aaunder aathe aapersons aaso aalitigating. aa

Explanation aaVII: aaThe aaprovisions aaof aathis aasection aashall aaapply aato aaa aaproceeding aafor
aathe aaexecution aaof aaa aadecree aaand aareferences aain aathis aasection aato aaany aasuit, aaissue aaor
aaformer aasuit aashall aabe aaconstrued aaas aareferences, aarespectively, aato aaa aaproceeding aafor

1
aaSIR aaLAWRENCE aaJENKINS, aaSheoprasad aaSingh aav. aaRamanandan aaPrasad aaSingh, aaAIR aa1916 aaPC aa78.
aathe aaexecution aaof aathe aadecree, aaquestion aaarising aain aasuch aaproceeding aaand aaa aaformer
aaproceeding aafor aathe aaexecution aaof aathat aadecree. aa

Explanation aaVIII: aaAn aaissue aaheard aaand aafinally aadecided aaby aaa aacourt aaof aalimited
aajurisdiction, aacompetent aato aadecide aasuch aaissue, aashall aaoperate aaas aares aaJudicata aain aaa
aasubsequent aasuit, aanotwithstanding aathat aasuch aacourt aaof aalimited aajurisdiction aawas aanot
aacompetent aato aatry aasuch aasubsequent aasuit aain aawhich aasuch aaissue aahas aabeen
aasubsequently aaraised. aa

INTRODUCTION:

Section aa11 aaof aathe aaCode aaof aaCivil aaProcedure aaembodies aathe aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata
aaor aathe aarule aaof aaconclusiveness aaof aaa aajudgment, aaas aato aathe aapoints aadecided aaeither aaof
aafact, aaor aaof aalaw, aaor aaof aafact aaand aalaw, aain aaevery aasubsequent aasuit aabetween aathe aasame
aaparties. aaIt aaenacts aathat aaonce aathe aamatter aafinally aadecided aaby aaa aacompetent aacourt aano
aaparty aacan aabe aapermitted aato aareopen aait aain aaa aasubsequent aalitigation. aaIn aathe aaabsence
aaof aasuch aarule aathere aawill aabe aano aaend aato aalitigation aaand aathe aaparties aawould aabe aaput
2
aato aaconstant aatrouble, aaharassment aaand aaexpenses.

This aadoctrine aahas aabeen aaaccepted aain aaall aacivilized aalegal aasystems. aaUnder aathe aaRoman
aalaw, aaa aadefendant aacould aasuccessfully aacontest aaa aasuit aafiled aaby aaa aaplaintiff aaon aaa aaplea
aaof aa“ex aacaption aares aajudicata”. aaIt aawas aasaid.”One aasuit aaand aaone aadecision aais aaenough
aafor aaa aasingle aadispute”. aaIn aathe aawords aaof aaSpence aabower, aares aajudicata aameans aa“a
aafinal aajudicial aadecision aapronounced aaby aajudicial aatribunal aahaving aacompetent aajurisdiction
aaover aathe aacause aaor aamatter aain aalitigation aaand aaover aathe aaparties aathereto”

The aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata aahas aabeen aaexplained aain aathe aasimplest aamanner aaby aaDas
3
aaGupta,J aain aathe aacase aaSatyadhyan aaGhoshal aav aaDeorjin aaDebi aaIn aathe aafollowing aawords:

“The aaprinciple aaof aares aajudicata aais aabased aaon aathe aaneed aaof aagiving
aafinality aato aajudicial aadecisions. aaWhat aait aasays aais aathat aaonce aaa aares
aais aajudicata. aaIt aashall aanot aabe aaadjudged aaagain. aaPreliminary aait
aaapplies aaas aabetween aapast aalitigation aaand aafuture aalitigation. aawhen aaa
aamatter aawhether aaon aaa aaquestion aaof aafact aaor aaa aaquestion aaof aaa
aadecision aais aafinal aa,either aabecause aano aaappeal aawas aataken aaon aahigher
aacourt aaor aabecause aathe aaappeal aawas aadismissed aa,or aano aaappeals aalies,
aaneither aaparty aawill aalies, aaneither aapart aawill aabe aaallowed aain aafuture
aasuit aabar aaproceeding aabetween aathe aasame aaparties aato aacanvass aathe

2
aaSatyadhyan aaghoshal aav aaDeorjin aaDebi aaAIR aa1960 aaSC aa941

3
aaAIR aa1960 aaSC aa941
 4
aamatter aaagain”

RES aaJUDICATA aameans aa“a aathing aadecided" aain aaLatin. aaIt aais aaa aacommon aalaw aadoctrine
aameant aato aabar aare-litigation aaof aacases aabetween aathe aasame aaparties aain aaCourt. aaOnce aaa
aafinal aajudgment aahas aabeen aahanded aadown aain aaa aalawsuit aasubsequent aajudges aawho aaare
aaconfronted aawith aaa aasuit aathat aais aaidentical aato aaor aasubstantially aathe aasame aaas aathe
aaearlier aaone aawill aaapply aares aajudicata aato aapreserve aathe aaeffect aaof aathe aafirst aajudgment.
aaThis aais aato aaprevent aainjustice aato aathe aaparties aaof aaa aacase aasupposedly aafinished, aabut
aaperhaps aamostly aato aaavoid aaunnecessary aawaste aaof aaresources aain aathe aacourt aasystem. aaRes
aajudicata aadoes aanot aamerely aaprevent aafuture aajudgments aafrom aacontradicting aaearlier aaones,
aabut aaalso aaprevents aathem aafrom aamultiplying aajudgments, aaso aaa aaprevailing aaplaintiff
aacould aanot aarecover aadamages aafrom aathe aadefendant aatwice aafor aathe aasame aainjury.

This aarule aaof aalaw aahas aabeen aamade aaapplicable aaeven aato aawrit aaproceedings aaas aawell. aaIt
5
aahas aaalso aabeen aadecided aaby aaSupreme aaCourt aain aaM aaS aaM aaSharma aav aaSinha, aathat
aawhen aaonce aaa aawrit aapetition aahas aabeen aamoved aain aaa aaHigh aaCourt aaor aaSupreme aaCourt,
aaand aahas aabeen aarejected aathere aaon aamerits, aathen aaa aasubsequent aawrit aacannot aabe aamoved
aain aathe aasame aacourt aaon aathe aasame aacause aaof aaaction. aa

Brief aaHistory aaand aaOrigin aaof aaRes aaJudicata

"Res aajudicata aapro aaveritateoccipitur" aais aathe aafull aaLatin aamaxim aawhich aahas, aaover aathe
aayears, aashrunk aato aamere aa"Res aaJudicata". aaThe aaconcept aaof aaRes aaJudicata aafinds aaits
aaevolvement aafrom aathe aaEnglish aaCommon aaLaw aasystem, aabeing aaderived aafrom aathe
aaoverriding aaconcept aaof aajudicial aaeconomy, aaconsistency, aaand aafinality. aaFrom aathe
aacommon aalaw, aait aagot aaincluded aain aathe aaCode aaof aaCivil aaProcedure, aa1908 aaand aawhich
aawas aalater aaas aaa aawhole aawas aaadopted aaby aathe aaIndian aalegal aasystem. aaFrom aathe aaCivil
aaProcedure aaCode, aathe aaAdministrative aaLaw aawitnesses aaits aaapplicability. aaThen, aaslowly
aabut aasteadily aathe aaother aaacts aaand aastatutes aaalso aastarted aato aaadmit aathe aaconcept aaof aaRes
aaJudicata aawithin aaits aaambit. aaUnder aathe aaRoman aalaw, aaa aadefendant aacould aasuccessfully
aacontest aaa aasuit aafiled aaby aaa aaplaintiff aaon aathe aaplea aaof aa“ex aacaptio aares aajudicata”
aawhich aameans aa“one aasuit aaand aaone aadecision aais aaenough aafor aaany aasingle aadispute”.

It aaessentially aameant aathat:

1. aaOnce aaa aamatter aais aafinally aadecided aaby aaa aacompetent aacourt, aano aaparty aacan aabe
aapermitted aato aareopen aait aain aasubsequent aalitigation.

2. aaA aafinal aajudicial aadecision aapronounced aaby aaa aajudicial aatribunal aahaving aacompetent

4
aaIbid aaat aap.943
5
aaAIR aa1960 aaSC aa1186
aajurisdiction aaover aathe aacause aaor aamatter aain aalitigation, aaand aaover aathe aaparties aathereto.

As aaexplained aaby aaDas aaGupta aaJ., aa“When aaa aamatter, aawhether aaon aaa aaquestion aaof aafact
aaor aalaw, aahas aabeen aadecided aabetween aatwo aaparties aain aaone aasuit aaand aathe aadecision
aais aafinal, aaeither aabecause aano aaappeal aawas aataken aato aathe aahigher aacourt, aaor aano
aaappeal aalies aain aasuch aacase, aaneither aaparty aawill aabe aaallowed aain aathe aafuture aasuit
aabetween aathe aasame aaparties aato aacanvass aathe aamatter aaagain.”

The aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata aais aabased aaon aathree aamaxims:

a) aaNemodebetbisvexari aapro aauna aaet aaeademcausa aa(no aaman aashould aabe aapunished aatwice
aafor aathe aasame aacause)

b) aaInterest aareipublicaeut aasit aafinis aalitium aa(it aais aain aathe aainterest aaof aathe aastate aathat
aathere aashould aabe aaan aaend aato aaa aalitigation)

c) aaRes aajudicata aapro aaveritateoccipitur aa(a aajudicial aadecision aamust aabe aaaccepted aaas
aacorrect)

Thus, aathe aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata aais aathe aacombined aaresult aaof aathe aapublic aapolicy
aareflected aain aathe aathree aamaxims, aaand aathey aaapply aato aaall aajudicial aaproceedings aawhether
6
aacivil aaor aacriminal. aaThe aaSupreme aaCourt aain aaLal aaChand aav. aaRadhaKrishan aaexplained
aathe aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata aaby aastating aathat, aathe aaprinciple aais aafounded aaon aajustice,
aaequity aaand aagood aaconscience. aaOnce aaa aafinal aajudgment aahas aabeen aaannounced aain aaa
aalawsuit, aathe aasubsequent aajudges aawho aaare aaconfronted aawith aaa aasuit aathat aais aaidentical
aato aaor aasubstantially aathe aasame aaas aathe aaearlier aaone, aathey aawould aaapply aathe aaRes
aaJudicata aadoctrine aa‘to aapreserve aathe aaeffect aaof aathe aafirst aajudgment’. aaTherefore, aathe
aasame aacase aacannot aabe aataken aaup aaagain aaeither aain aathe aasame aaor aain aathe aadifferent
aaCourt aaof aaIndia. aaThis aais aajust aato aaprevent aathem aafrom aamultiplying aajudgments, aaso aaa
aaprevailing aaplaintiff aamay aanot aarecover aadamages aafrom aathe aadefendant aatwice aafor aathe
aasame aainjury.

Therefore, aaRes aaJudicata aain aaa aanut aashell aais aaa aajudicial aaconcept aawherein aathe aaCourts
aado aanot aaallow aaa aapetition aato aabe aafiled aain aathe aasame aaor aato aathe aaother aaCourt aafor aathe
aadoctrine aaof aaRes aaJudicata aawould aaapply aaand aathe aaparty aawould aanot aabe aaallowed aato
aafile aathe aapetition aaor aato aacontinue aathe aapetition aa(as aathe aacase aamay aabe).

Pukhraj aaD. aaJain aav. aaG. aaGopalakrishna7 aait aahas aabeen aastated aathat, aa“If aathe aacourt aais
aasatisfied aathat aasubsequent aasuit aacan aabe aadecided aapurely aaon aathe aalegal aapoint, aait aais

6
aa(1977) aa2 aaSCC aa88.

7
aaAIR aa(2004) aa7 aaSCC aa251.
aaopen aato aathe aacourt aato aadecide aasuch aasuit.
 
 The aaprovisions aaof aaSection aa11 aaof aathe
aaCode aaof aaCivil aaProcedure aaare aanot aaat aaall aaexhaustive aaeven aathough aait aahas aavery aawide

aaand aaenlarged aaamplitude”.
 


The aasection aa“does aanot aaaffect aathe aajurisdiction aaof aathe aaCourt” aabut aa“operates aaas aaa aapar
aato aathe aatrial” aaof aathe aasuit aaor aaissue, aaif aathe aamatter aain aathe aasuit aawas aadirectly aaand
aasubstantially aain aaissue aa(and aafinally aadecided) aain aathe aaprevious aasuit aabetween aathe aasame
aaparties aalitigating aaunder aathe aasame aatitle aain aaa aaCourt, aathen aathey aaare aanot aacompetent
aai.e. aathey aabecome aabarred aato aatry aathe aasubsequent aasuit aain aawhich aasuch aaissue aahas
aabeen aaraised.

Thus, aathis aadoctrine aaof aaRes aaJudicata aais aaa aafundamental aaconcept aabased aaon aapublic
aapolicy aaand aaprivate aainterest. aaIt aais aaconceived aain aathe aalarger aapublic aainterest, aawhich
aarequires aathat aaevery aalitigation aamust aacome aato aaan aaend. aaIt aatherefore, aaapplies aato aacivil
aasuits, aaexecution aaproceedings, aaarbitration aaproceedings, aataxation aamatters, aawrit aapetitions,

aaadministrative aaorders, aainterim aaorders, aacriminal aaproceedings, aaetc.
 
 An aaordinary

aalitigation aabeing aaa aaparty aaor aaclaiming aaunder aaa aaparty aaof aaa aaformer aasuit aacannot aaavoid
aathe aaapplicability aaof aasection aa11 aaof aaC.P.C. aaas aait aais aamandatory aaexcept aaon aathe
aaground aaof aafraud aaor aacollusion aaas aathe aacase aamay aabe. aaThe aaonus aaof aaproof aalies aaon
aathe aaparty aarelying aaon aathe aatheory aaof aaRes aaJudicata. aaThe aaprovisions aaof aasection aa11
aaof aaC.P.C. aaare aa“not aadirectory aabut aamandatory”. aaThe aajudgment aain aaa aaformer aasuit aacan
aabe aaavoided aaonly aaby aataking aarecourse aato aasection aa44 aaof aathe aaIndian aaEvidence aaAct

aaon aathe aaground aaof aafraud aaor aacollusion.
 
 aa

CONDITIONS aaFOR aaRES aaJUDICATA:

To aaconstitute aaa aamatter aares aajudicata, aathe aafollowing aaconditions aamust aaconcur:

CONDITION aa1: aaMATTER aaIN aaISSUE

What aais aaan aa“issue”? aa

Issues aaare aaof aathree aakinds8:

 Issue aaof aaFact

 Issue aaof aaLaw
 Mixed aaissue aaof aaFact aaand aaLaw aa

8
aaSree aaMinakshi aaMills aaLtd, aaMadurai aav aaCommr aaof aaIncome aaTax, aaMadras aaAIR aa1957 aaSC aa49
Only aaissue aaof aafact aaconstitutes aaRes aaJudicata aairrespective aaof aathe aaerroneous aadecision.
aaA aadecision aaon aaa aamixed aaissue aaof aafact aaand aaa aalaw aaalso aaconstitutes aares aaJudicata.
aaBut aadecision aaon aaa aapure aaquestion aaof aalaw aaunrelated aato aathe aafacts aadoes aanot aaoperate
aaas aaRes aaJudicata aain aaa aasubsequent aasuit.

aaThere aawere aamany aaconflicting aadecision aaon aathis aaissue. aaSupreme aaCourt aain aaMathura
9
aaPrasad aav aaDossibai aaN.B aaJeejeebhoy aaheld aathat aadecision aaon aaa aapoint aaof aalaw
aaoperates aaas aares aaJudicata aaprovided aait aais aanot aaindependent aaof aathe aafacts aaof aathe aacase.
10
aaBut aaSupreme aaCourt aain aaAvtar aaSingh aav aaJagjit aaSingh aaruled aathe aaopposite aawhich
aawas aaerroneous aaas aait aawas aadecided aaper aaincuriam aaand aathus aais aanot aaa aagood aalaw.

Classification aaof aaMatter aain aaIssue:

Matters in
issue

Matters directly
and substantially Matters
in issue collaterally and
incidentally in
issue
A - Actually in B- Constructively
Issue (Exp III) in issue (Exp IV)

1. Matters aadirectly aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue

This aaexpression aawas aaintroduced aain aathe aaCivil aaProcedure aaCode aa(Act aano aaX aaof aa1877).
11
aaIn aaits aacommentary , aait aaquoted aaLord aaCoke,

9
aaAIR aa1971 aaSC aa2355 aaat aap. aa2357-2358: aa(1970) aa1 aaSCC aa613 aaat aap.617

10
aa(1979) aa4 aaSCC aa83: aaAIR aa1979 aaSCC aa1911

11
aaJames aaHenry aaNelson, aa‘Commentaries aaon aathe aaCPC aa(ACT aaX aaof aa1977), aa(Cambray aaPublisher,
aaCalcutta)
 “An aaestoppel aais aawhere aaa aaman aais aaconcluded aaby aahis aaown aaact aaor
aaacceptance aato aasay aathe aatruth,” aaand aa“touching aaestoppels aawhich aaare
aaa aacurious aaand aaexcellent aakind aaof aalearning, aait aais aato aabe aaobserved
aathat aathere aaare aathree aakinds aaof aaestoppels; aaviz, aaby aamatter aaof
aarecord, aaby aamatter aain aawriting, aaand aaby aamatter aain aapais.” aa

This aasection aapermits aathe aapleading aaof aa‘estoppel aaby aamatter aaof aarecord” aain aacases aaof
aaevery aafrequent aaoccurrence. aaFurther aain aaorder aato aaraise aathis aacontention, aaone aamust
aaalleged aathe aasame aaand aathe aaother aapart aadenies aaeither aaexpressly aaor aaby aanecessary
aaimplication. aaWhat aais aa‘substantial’ aain aaissue. aaThe aaBlack’s aaLaw aadictionary aadefines
12

aasubstantial aaas aa‘being aasignificant aaor aalarge aaand aahaving aasubstance’. aaSuch aasubstantial
aaissue aamust aamaterially aaaffect aathe aadecision aaof aathe aasuit. aaAnd aafor aathis aafactors aasuch
aaas aanature aaof aalitigation aaand aaissues aaraised aamust aabe aareferred aaand aahave aato aabe
13
aadecided aain aathe aalight aaof aaplain aawritten aastatement aaand aaevidence aaof aarecord. aaThe
aanext aaquestion aawhich aais aaof aarelevance aahere aais aa– aaIs aathe aasubject aamatter aapart aaof aathe
aatest aaof aares aaJudicata. aaIf aathe aasubject aamatter aain aathe aapreviously aadecided aasuit aais aathe
aasame aaas aathat aain aathe aaconsequent aasuit, aathen aathe aatrial aawill aanot aabe aabarred aaby aares
aaJudicata. aaBut aawhere aaboth aamatter aadirectly aaand aasubstantial aain aaissue aaand aathe aasubject
aamatter aaare aasame aain aaboth aathe aasuits, aathe aamatter aain aaissue aawill aabe aares aajudicata, aanot
aabecause aaof aathe aaidentity aaof aathe aasubject aamatter, aabut aabecause aaof aathe aamatter aadirectly
14
aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue. aaThus aathe aatest aaof aares aajudicata aameans aathe aaidentity aaof
aaissue aaand aanot aathe aaidentity aaof aasubject aamatter.

The aamatter aadirectly aaand aasubstantial aain aaissue aawhich aaid aathe aafirst aacondition aais aaread
aaalong aawith aaExplaination aathird aaand aafourth aaunder aaSection aa11 aaof aathe aaCode. aaIt aais
aafurther aadivided aainto aatwo aa–

 Explaination aaIII aathat aais aamatter aaactually aain aaissue.

 Explaination aaIV aathat aais aamatter aaconstructively aain aaissue.

a) Matter aaActually aain aaissue aa(Explanation aaIII)

Explanation aaIII aastates aathat aathe aamatter aareferred aato aamust aain aathe aaformer aasuit aahave
aabeen aaalleged aaby aaone aaparty aaand aaeither aadeemed aaor aaadmitted, aaexpressly aaor
aaimpliedly, aaby aathe aaother. aaThus aaa aamatter aais aaactually aain aaissue aadirectly aaand

12
aaLonakutty aav aaThomman aaAIR aa1976 aaSC aa1645

13
aaIshwardaas aav aaState aaof aaMadhya aaPradesh aaAIR aa1979 aaSC aa551

14
aaTriloki aav aaPertap aa(1888) aaILR aa15 aaCal aa809, aa15 aaIA aa13.
aasubstantially aaand aaa aacompetent aacourt aadecides aait aaon aamerits. aaConsider aathe aafollowing
aaillustration aato aamake aait aamore aaclear- aa

A aasues aaB aafor aarent aadue. aaThe aadefence aaof aaB aais aathat aano aarent aais aadue. aaHere aathe
aaclaim aafor aarent aais aathe aamatter aawith aarespect aaof aawhich aarelief aais aaclaimed. aaTherefore
aathis aais aaa aamatter aa‘directly aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue’.

b) Matter aaconstructively aain aaissue

The aarule aaof aaconstructive aares aajudicata aais aaengrafted aain aaExplanation aaIV aawhich aastates
aathat aaany aamatter aawhich aamight aaand aaought aato aahave aabeen aamade aaground aaof aadefence
aaor aaattack aain aasuch aaformer aasuit aashall aabe aadeemed aato aahave aabeen aaa aamatter aadirectly
aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aain aasuch aasuit. aa

Here aaunder aathis, aaa aamatter aawhich aamight aaand aaought aato aahave aabeen aamade aaground aaof
aaattack aais aaa aamatter aawhich aais aaconstructively aain aaissue. aaThus aathere aais aano aadistinction
aabetween aathe aaclaim aathat aahave aaactually aamade aain aathe aaissue aaand aathat aamight aaand
aaought aato aahave aabeen aamade. aaIt aais aaan aaartificial aaform aaof aares aajudicata aaand aaprovides
aathat aaif aaa aaplea aacould aahave aabeen aataken aaby aaa aaparty aain aaa aaproceeding aabetween aahim
aaand aahis aaopponent, aahe aashould aanot aabe aapermitted aato aatake aathat aaplea aaagainst aathe
aasame aaparty aain aaa aasubsequent aaproceeding aawith aareference aato aathe aasame aasubject
15
aamatter.

The aavery aapurpose aaof aathis aadoctrine aawas aato aasubdue aacantankerous aalitigant aawhich
aacould aacause aaharassment aaand aahardship aato aathe aaopponent aaby aasuing aahim aarepeatedly
aawith aanew aadefences aaor aapoints. aaAs aarightly aaobserved aaby aaSomervell, aaL.J., aa

I aathink aathat…it aawould aabe aaaccurate aato aasay aathat aares

aajudicata aa… aais aanot aaconfined aato aathe aaissues aawhich aathe
aacourt aais aaactually aaasked aato aadecide, aabut aathat aait aacovers
aaissues aaor aafacts aawhich aaare aaso aaclearly aapart aaof aathe aasubject
aamatter aaof aathe aalitigation aaand aaso aaclearly aacould aahave aabeen
aaraised aathat aait aawould aabe aaan aaabuse aaof aathe aaprocess aaof aathe
aacourt aato aaallow aaa aanew aaproceeding aato aabe aastarted aain
aarespect aaof aathem.”
16

17
The aaSupreme aaCourt aain aaWorkmen aav aaBoard aaof aaTrustees, aaCochin aaPort aaTrust
aaexplained aaconstructive aares aajudicata aain aafollowing aawords:

15
aaC.K.Takwani aa‘Civil aaProcedure aaCode’(Eastern aaBook aaCompany aa6th aaed) aap.81

16
aaGreenhalgh aav aaMallard aa(1947) aa2 aaAII aaER aa255 aaat aap. aa257

17
aa(1978) aa3 aaSCC aa119: aaAIR aa1978 aaSCC aa1283
 “The aaprinciple aaof aares aajudicata aaalso aacomes aainto aaplay aawhen
aaby aathe aajudgment aaor aaorder aaa aadecision aaof aaa aaparticular
aaissue aais aaimplicit aain aait, aathat aais, aait aamust aabe aadeemed aato
aahave aabeen aanecessary aadecided aaby aaimplication, aathen aaalso
aaprinciple aaof aares aajudicata aaon aathat aaissue aais aadirectly
aaapplicable.”

In aaa aarecently aareported aadecision aaRamchandra aaDagdu aaSonavane aa(Dead) aaby aaL.Rs. aav.
18
aaVithu aaHira aaMahar aa(Dead) aaby aaLRs. aa& aaOrs. , aathe aaSupreme aaCourt aahas aaexplained
aathe aadoctrine aaof aaconstructive aares aajudicata aaas aaapplicable aain aaIndian aalaw, aa

“A aasub-set aaof aathe aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata, aaemanating aafrom

aaSection aa11 aaof aathe aaCode aaof aaCivil aaProcedure, aathe aadoctrine
aaof aaconstructive aares aajudicata aasets aato aanaught aaany aaclaims
aabeing aaraised aain aaa aasubsequent aaproceeding aawhere aain aaan
aaearlier aaproceeding aasuch aaclaim aashould aa/ aaought aato aahave
aabeen aaraised aaand aadecided. aaA aarule aaof aaprudence, aathus, aathe
aadoctrine aaseeks aato aabar aadetermination aaand aaenforcement aaof
aaclaims aawhich aahave aanot aabeen aaraised aaat aaan aaappropriate
aajuncture aain aajudicial aaproceedings.” aa

There aaare aasome aaillustrations aato aamake aathe aaconcept aaof aaConstructive aares aajudicata
aamore aaclear-

 In aaDevilal aaModi aav aaSTO19, aaA aachallenged aathe aavalidity aaof aaan aaorder aaof
aaassessment aaunder aaArticle aa226. aaThe aapetition aawas aadismissed aaon aamerits. aaAn
aaappeal aaagainst aathat aaorder aawas aaalso aadismissed aaby aaSC aaon aamerits. aaA aaagain
aafiled aaanother aawrit aapetition aain aathe aasame aaHC aaagainst aathe aasame aaorder aaof
aaassessment aaby aataking aasome aaadditional aaground. aaHC aadismissed aathe aapetition.
aaOn aaappeal, aaSC aabarred aathe aapetition aaby aathe aaprinciple aaof aaconstructive aares
aajudicata.
 In aaSivathannu aav aaKalimmal20, aaproperty aabeing aasame aain aaboth aathe aasuits, aathe
aaHigh aaCourt aaheld aathat aathat aawhere aathe aaplaintiff aain aathe aaearlier aasuit aacould aanot
aaestablish aatheir aatitle, aathey aacannot, aain aathe aasecond aasuit, aaclaim aathe aasame
aaproperty aaunder aaa aadifferent aatitle. aaHe aais aabarred aaby aaconstructive aares aajudicata.

Test aaof aaConstructive aaRes aajudicata

As aaa aageneral aarule, aaif aathe aamatter aarose aaas aaa aadefence aawould aahave aadefeated, aavaried,
aaor aain aaany aaway aaaffected aathe aadecree aain aaprevious aasuit, aait aaought aato aahave aabeen

18
aaAIR aa2010 aaSC aa818
19
aaAIR aa1965 aaSC aa1150: aa(1965) aa1 aaSCR aa686

20
aa(1983) aa2 aaMad aaLJ aa110
 21
aaraised. Conversely, aaif aathe aadecree aain aathe aaprevious aasuit aais aainconsistent aawith aaa
aadefence aawhich aaought aato aahave aabeen aaraised, aathat aadefence aamust aabe aadeemed aato aahave
22
aabeen aaraised aaand aafinally aadecided, aaand aais aabarred aaby aares aajudicata. aaFollowing aarules
aacan aabe aadeducted aafrom aathe aadiscussion aafor aasuits:

 Where aathe aaright aaclaimed aain aaboth aathe aasuits aais aathe aasame, aathe aasubsequent aasuit
aawill aabe aabarred aaby aares aajudicata, aathough aathe aaright aain aathe aasubsequent aasuit aais
23
aasought aato aabe aaestablished aaby aaa aatitle aadifferent aafrom aathat aain aathe aafirst aasuit.
aaFor aaexample-

Rukmanand aaKhaitan aav aaJawala aaDutt aaLohia24- aaIn aaa aasuit aato aarecover aaa aaloan,
aathe aaborrower’s aaprayer aafor aagranting aabenefits aaunder aaa aaparticular aaAct aawas
aarefused. aaA aafresh aasuit aaby aathe aaborrower aaunder aathe aaAct aafor aathe aasame
aabenefits aais aabarred aaby aares aajudicata.

Dhanniram aav aaRuttandas25A aafiles aaa aasuit aafor aadeclaration aathat aahe aais aaentitled aato
aacertain aalands aaas aaheir aato aaX. aaThe aasuit aais aadismissed. aaHe aacannot, aain aaa aalater
aasuit, aaclaim aatitle aato aathe aaproperties, aaby aaadverse aapossession.

 If aaa aamatter aawhich aaforms aaa aaground aaof aaattack aain aathe aasubsequent aasuit aacould
aahave aabeen aaalleged aaas aaa aaground aaof aadefence aain aathe aaformer aasuit, aabut aawas
aaomitted aato aabe aaso aaalleged aain aathat aasuit, aait aawill aabe aadeemed aato aahave aabeen
aadirectly aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aain aathat aasuit aawithin aathe aameaning aaof
26
aaExplanation aaIV. aa

Union aaof aaIndia aav aaBilas aaSingh27, aaA aacontract aawith aaa aafirm aacontained aaan
aaarbitration aaclause. aaThe aafirm aamade aaan aaapplication aafor aareference aato aaarbitration.
aaThe aaother aaparty aadid aanot aatake aathe aaplea aathat aathe aafirm aahad aabeen aare-
constituted. aaThe aaplea aacould aanot aabe aataken aalater. aa

21
aaShib aaChandra aav. aaLakhi aaPriya aa(1925) aa29 aaCWN aa513

22
aaMahim aav aaAnil aaBnadhu aa(1909) aaCWN aa253

23
aaMulla, aa‘Civil aaProcedure aaCode’ aa(Lexis aaNexis aaButterworths aaWadhwa aaNagpur aa14th aaed)

24
aaAIR aa1985 aaCal aa715

25
aaAIR aa1961 aaPunj aa563

26
aaIbid aaat aa25

27
aaAIR aa1985 aaPunj aa58
 Thus aaa aamatter aanot aaraised aain aathe aaprincipal aasuit aamay aabecome aares aajudicata
aa(constructively) aain aaexecution.

 Where aathe aaright aaclaimed aain aathe aasubsequent aasuit aais aadifferent aafrom aathat aain
aathe aaformer aasuit, aaand aait aais aaclaimed aaunder aaa aadifferent aatitle, aathe aasubsequent
28
aasuit aais aanot aabarred aaby aares aajudicata.

Mohomed aaIbrahim aav aaSheik aaHamja29, aaA, aaalleging aathat aahe aamortgaged aacertain
aalands aato aaB aawith aapossession, aasues aaB aafor aaredemption, aathe aasuit aabeing aabrought
aaby aahim aaas aamortgagor. aaThe aamortgage aais aanot aaproved, aaand aathe aasuit aais
aadismissed. aaA aathen aasues aaB aafor aapossession aaof aathe aasame aalands aaclaiming aathem
aaas aaabsolute aaowner aathereof.

EXCEPTION aaTO aaCONSTRUCTIVE aaRES aaJUDICATA:

The aadoctrine aaof aaconstructive aares aajudicata aadoes aanot aaapply aato aawrit aaproceedings aaunder
aaArticle aa32 aaof aathe aaconstitution. aaIt aais aaonly aathe aageneral aaprinciple aaof aares aajudicata
aawhich aais aaapplied aato aawrit aapetitions, aabut aaconstructive aares aajudicata, aawhich aais aaa
aaspecial aaand aaartificial aacreation aaof aares aajudicata, aaenacted aaby aathat aasection aaof aathe
aaCode aaof aaCivil aaProcedure, aacannot aagenerally aabe aaapplied aato aawrit aapetitions. aaTherefore,
aawhere aaa aaquestion aaof aalaw aawas aanot aaspecifically aadecided aain aaa aawrit aapetition, aait
aacannot aaoperate aaas aaconstructive aares aajudicata aain aaa aasubsequent aasuit aaon aathe aaground
aathat aathat aapoint aamust aabe aadeemed aato aahave aabeen aaraised aain aathe aapetition aaand aadecided
30
aaagainst aathe aaparty aawho aalost aain aathose aaproceedings. aaThus aathis aadoctrine aacannot aabe
aaapplied aato aawhittle aadown aaor aaoverride aathe aaconstitutional aamandate aato aathe aaSupreme
31
aaCourt aacontained aain aaArticle aa32.

2. MATTER aaCOLLATERALLY aaOR aaINCIDENTALLY aaIN aaISSUE

A aasuit aainvolves aaa aamatter aa‘directly aaand aasubstantially’ aain aaissue aaand aasometimes
aa‘collaterally aaand aaincidentally’ aain aaissue. aaIn aasuch aaa aacase, aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata
aaapplies aaonly aato aathe aaextent aaof aamatter aawhich aais aadirect aaand aasubstantial aain aaissue. aaA
aamatter aais aacollateral aaand aasubstantial aain aaissue aawith aarespect aato aawhich aano aarelief aais
aaclaimed aabut aait aais aaput aaup aain aathe aaissue aain aaorder aato aaadjudicate aaon aaa aamatter
aa‘direct aaand aasubstantial’ aain aarespect aaof aawhich aarelief aais aaclaimed.

28
aaIbid aaat aa25

29
aa(1911) aaILR aa35 aaBom aa507, aa21 aaIC aa387

30
aaUnion aaof aaIndia aaand aaAnr aav aaSharmanand aa(1972) aaIILLJ aa423 aaMP

31
aaMunicipal aaCorp aaAhmedabad aav aaJyotindra aa20 aaGuj aaLR aa90
Thus aait aawould aabe aaa aamatter aadirectly aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aaif aait aawas aaimportant
aafor aathe aajudgment aaor aathe aadecision aais aabased aaupon aasuch aamatter, aaotherwise aait aawould
aabe aaa aamatter aacollaterally aaand aaincidentally aain aaissue. aaThus aawhether aaa aamatter aawas
aadirectly aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aaor aamerely aacollaterally aaor aaincidentally aain aaissue
aahas aato aabe aadetermined aawith aareference aato aaplaint, aawritten aastatement, aaissues aaand
32
aajudgment aain aathe aasuit.

In aaMunshi aaMuzbool aaRaza aav aaHasan aaRaza33, aathere aawas aaa aasecond aaappeal aabefore aathe
aaHigh aaCourt, aathe aaparty aawas aadirected aato aatake aarecourse aato aaconsolidation aaproceedings
aain aarespect aaof aahis aaalleged aarights. aaThe aaparty aatook aarecourse aaas aadirected aabut
aachallenged aathe aadecision aaof aathe aaconsolidation aaauthorities aain aawrit aapetition, aawhich
aafailed. aaThe aaparty aawould aabe aaprecluded aafrom aareagitating aathe aasame aaquestion aaonce
aaover, aain aathe aasecond aaappeal.

CONDITION aa2: aaSAME aaPARTIES aaOR aaPARTIES aaUNDER aaWHOM aaANY aaOR
aaTHEY aaCLAIM

Same aaparties aaor aaparties aaunder aawhom aaany aaor aathey aaclaim: aa

Parties aaare aapersons aawhose aanames aaare aaon aathe aarecord aaat aathe aatime aaof aathe aadecision,
34
aaand aaa aaparty aamay aabe aaa aaperson aawho aahas aaintervened aain aathe aasuit. aaSimilarly, aaa
aaperson aawho aarepresents aaanother aain aalitigation aais aaalso aaconsidered aaas aaparty. aaIn aaorder
aato aasustain aathe aaplea aaof aares aajudicata aait aais aanot aanecessary aathat aaall aathe aaparties aato
aathe aalitigation aamust aabe aacommon. aaAll aathat aais aanecessary aais aathat aathe aaissue aashould
aabe aabetween aathe aasame aaparties aaor aabetween aaparties aaunder aawhom aathey aaor aaany aaof
35
aathem aaclaims. The aacondition aais aathe aaprinciple aathat aajudgments aaand aadegrees aabind aaonly
36
aaparties aaand aaprivies.

In aaAhmedbhoy aav aaVulleebhoy,37 aathe aaBombay aahigh aacourt aaclassified aapersons aaother aathan
aaparties aaas aa(1) aaprivies, aathe aaground aaof aaprivity aais aaproperty aaand aanot aapersonal
aarelations aa(2) aapersons aanot aacalming aaunder aaparties aabut aarepresented aaby aathem, aaand aa(3)
aastrangers.

32
aaIbid aaat aa17

33
aaAIR aa1978 aaSC aa1398

34
Govind aav aaTaruck aa(1878) aaILR aa3 aaCal aa145.
35
aaJain aaM.P aa‘The aaCode aaof aaCivil aaprocedure’ aa(Lexis aaNexis aa3rd aaEdition, aa2011.)

36
Mohunt aaDas aav aaNil aaKomul aa(1899) aa4 aaCWN aa283.
37
(1892) aaILR aa6 aaBom aa703, aa709
Res aajudicata aanot aaonly aaaffects aaparties aabut aatheir aaprivies, aai.e aapersons aaclaiming aaunder
aathem, aaand aaeach aaprivy aastands aain aathe aashoes aaof aathe aaparty aaunder aawhom aahe aaclaims,
38
aathis aais aadone aawhen aathe aaprivy aadrives aahis aatitle aathrough aaother aapersons. In aaorder aato
aamake aaa aaperson aaa aaprivy aahe aamust aahave aaacquired aaan aainterest aain aathe aasubject aamatter
aaof aaaction aaby aainheritance, aasuccession aaor aapurchase aasubsequently aato aathe aaaction aaor aahe
39
aamust aahold aathe aaproperty aasubordinately. aaA aaprivy aawho aaclaims aaunder aaa aaparty aais
aabound, aafor aahe aawho aatakes aaadvantage aamust aaalso aabear aathe aaburden, aaqui
aasentitcommodunsentiedebetet aaonus.

In aaIshwardas aav aaState aaof aaMadhya aaPradesh,40 aait aahas aabeen aastated aathat aa

“in aaorder aato aasustain aathe aaplea aaif aares aajudicata aait aais aanot
aanecessary aaall aathe aaparties aato aathe aatwo aalitigations aamust aabe
aacommon. aaWhat aais aanecessary aais aathat aathe aaissue aamust aabe
aabetween aathe aasame aaparties aaor aabetween aathe aaparties aaunder aawhom
aathey aaor aaany aaof aathem aaclaims”.

Jagannath aav aaSundari41stated aathat, aa

“If, aain aaa aaprior aacase, aaparents aarely aaon aaa aadeed aaand, aain aathe
aalater aacase aachildren, aaalso aarely aaon aathe aasame aadeed, aathe aaprinciple
aaof aares aajudicata aashall aacome aainto aaforce, aaas aathe aaparents aain aathe
aaprior aacase aaought aato aabe aadeemed aato aahave aarepresented aanot aaonly
aatheir aainterest aabut aaalso aathe aainterest aaof aatheir aachildren aaunder aathe
aasame aadeed. aaBut aawhere aathe aachild aawas aaborn aaafter aathe aaprior
aasuit aawas aainstituted, aathe aaparents aacould aanot aabe aasaid aato aahave
aarepresented aathe aainterest aaof aathe aaunborn aachild, aathe aalater aasuit aaof
aathe aachild aacouldn’t aabe aabared aaby aathe aaprinciple aaof aares aajudicata,
aaeven aaif aait aais aabased aaon aathe aasame aatitle aadeed”.

Res aajudicata aabetween aaco-defendants:

In aaMohammad aaSadar aaAli aaKhan aav aaMirzaWiquar aaAli,42 aait aahas aabeen aastated aathat
aathere aaare aathree aaconditions aawhich aahave aato aabe aafulfilled aabefore aaapplying aathe
aaprinciple aaof aares aajudicata aabetween aaco- aadefendants

38
Ahmedbhoy aav aaVulleebhoy,(1892) aaILR aa6 aaBom aa703, aa709
39
Ibid aaat aa25
40
AIR aa1979 aaSC aa551
41
(1979) aaILR aa20 aaMad aa154
42
AIR aa1943 aaPC aa115
 (1) A aaconflict aaof aainterest aabetween aathe aaco- aadefendants. aa
(2) The aanecessity aato aadecide aathat aaconflict aain aaorder aato aagive aathe aaplaintiff
aaappropriate aarelief.
(3) A aadecision aaon aathe aaquestion aabetween aathe aaco- aadefendants.

If aathese aaconditions aaare aapresent, aathe aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata aawould aaapply aato aathe
aaco-defendant aaeven aaif aahe aadid aanot aaappear aain aathe aaearlier aasuit aaand aacontest aathe
aaquestion. aaWhere aathere aais aaa aaconflict aaof aainterest aabetween aaco-defendants aaand aait aais
aanecessary aato aadecide aathat aaconflict aain aaorder aato aagrant aarelief aato aathe aaplaintiff, aasuch
43
aaadjudication aawill aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata aabetween aathe aaco-defendants. If aathe aaplaintiff
aacannot aaget aahis aaright aawithout aatrying aaand aadeciding aaa aacase aabetween aaco-defendants,
aathe aacourt aawill aatry aaand aadecide aathe aacase, aaand aathe aadefendants aawill aabe aabound aaby aait.
aa

Just aathe aasame aaway, aaa aamatter aamay aabe aare aajudicata aabetween aaco-plaintiffs, aasubject aato
aathe aasame aaconditions aawhich aaapply aato aathe aacase aaof aaco-defendants, aasubject aato aathe
44
aasame aaconditions aawhich aaapply aato aathe aacase aaof aadefendants.

Pro aaForma aadefendants, aaa aaparty aamay aabe aajoined aaas aaa aadefendant aain aaa aasuit aamerely
aabecause aahis aapresence aais aanecessary aain aaorder aato aaenable aathe aacourt aaeffectually aaand
45
aacompletely aato aaadjudicate aaupon aathe aaquestion aainvolved . aaIn aasuch aaa aacase, aano aarelief
aais aasought aaagainst aahim aaand aathe aamatter aain aaissue aain aathe aasuit aais aanot aain aaissue
aabetween aahim aaand aaany aaother aaparty, aaand aacannot aatherefore, aabe aares aajudicata aaagainst
aahim. aa

Representative aasuit: aa

Representative aasuits aarefer aato aacases aain aawhich aaa aadecision aain aaa aasuit aamay aaoperate aaas
aares aajudicata aaagainst aapersons aanot aaexpressly aanamed aaas aaparties aato aathe aasuit aaas aawhere
aaa aasuit aais aainstituted aaby aaA aaand aaB aaon aabehalf aaof aathemselves aaand aaothers aaor aawhere
aait aais aainstituted aaagainst aaA aaand aaB aaon aabehalf aaof aathemselves aaand aaothers.

Explanation aaVI: aawhere aapersons aalitigate aabona aafide aain aarespect aaof aaa aapublic aaright aaor
aaof aaa aaprivate aaright aaclaimed aain aacommon aafor aathemselves aaand aaothers, aaall aapersons
aainterested aain aasuch aaright aashall, aafor aathe aapurpose aaof aathis aasection, aabe aadeemed aato
aaclaim aaunder aathe aapersons aaso aalitigating.

43
aaFerro aaAlloys aaCop aav aaUnion aaof aaIndia, aaAIR aa1999 aaSC aa1236.

44
aaKrishnan aav aaKannan,(1898) aaILR aa21 aaMad aa8.
aa
45
Order aa1, aaRule aa10(2) aaand aaSec aa32 aaof aaCPC, aa1882.
This aaexplanation aadeals aawith aathe aarepresentative aasuits, aathat aais, aasuits aainstituted aaby aaor
aaagainst aaa aaperson aain aahis aarepresentative, aaas aadistinguished aafrom aaindividual aacharacter.
aaSuits aabrought aaor aadefended aaby aaone aaperson aaon aabehalf aaof aathemselves aaand aaothers
aawith aathe aaleave aaof aathe aacourt aaunder aaO aa1, aar aa8 aaare aacommon aainstances aaof aathis
aaclass. aa

It aahas aabeen aadecided aaby aaSupreme aaCourt aain aaDiwakar aaSrivastava aav aaState aaof
aathat aa“if aaa aarepresentative aasuit aais aabought aaand aaa aadecree aais
46
aaMadhya aaPradesh,
aapassed, aasuch aaa aadecree aawill aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata aain aaa aasubsequent aasuit”.

It aahas aaalso aabeen aaadjudicated aaby aaSC aain aaTamil aaNadu aaHousing aaBoard aav
47
aaGanapathy, aathat aaexplanation aaVI aais aanot aaconfined aato aacases aacovered aaby aaOrder aa1,
aaRule aa8 aabut aawould aainclude aaany aalitigation aain aawhich, aaparties aaare aaentitled, aaeven
aaapart aafrom aathe aarule, aato aarepresent aainterested aapersons aaother aathan aathem.

The aaconditions aaunder aawhich aaa aadecision aain aaa aasuit aamay aaconstitute aares aajudicata
aaagainst aathe aaparties aanot aaexpressly aanamed aaare:-

(1) That aathere aamust aabe aaa aaright aaclaimed aaby aaone aaor aamore aapersons aain aacommon
aafir aathemselves aaand aaothers aanit aaexpressly aanamed aain aathe aasuit
(2) That aathe aaparties aanot aaexpressly aanamed aain aathe aasuit aamust aabe aainterested aain
aasuch aaright
(3) That aathe aalitigation aamust aahave aabeen aaconducted aabona aafide aaon aabehalf aaof aaall
aaparties aainterested aa
(4) That aaif aathe aasuit aais aaone aaunder aaO aa1, aar aa8 aaall aathe aaconditions aatherein aahave
48
aabeen aastrictly aacomplied aawith.

Explanation aaVI aais aasubject aato aathe aaessential aacondition aathat aathe aainterest aaof aaa aaperson
aaconcerned aahas aareally aabeen aarepresented aaby aathe aaothers, aain aaother aawords, aahis aainterest
aahas aabeen aaprotected aain aaa aabona aafide aacapacity. aaIf aathere aais aaa aaclash aaof aainterest
aabetween aathe aaperson aaconcerned aaand aathe aaassumed aarepresentative, aaor aaif aathe aalatter
aadeemed aato aabe aain aacollusion aaor aafor aaany aaother aareason aamalafide aaneglects aato aadefend
49
aathe aacase, aait aacannot aabe aaconsidered aato aabe aaa aarepresentative aainterest.

The aaquestion aawhether aathe aamanager aaof aaa aajoint aaHindu aafamily aarepresents aaother
aamembers aain aaa aasuit aaaffecting aathe aafamily aadepends aavery aalargely aaupon aathe aafacts aaof

46
aaAIR aa1984 aaSC aa468

47
aaAIR aa1990 aaSC aa642

48
Narayanswami aav aaParvatiBai, aaAIR aa1949 aaMad aa379.
49
Suraiya aaBegum aavMohmUsman aa(1991) aa3 aaSCC aa114.
aathe aacase. aaIf aahe aawas aaacting aain aathe aasuit aain aathe aainterest aaof aathe aaminor aamembers
50
aaand aawith aathe aaconsent aaof aathe aaadult aamembers, aathey aaall aaare aabound.

In aaAbdur aaRahim aav aaMahomedBarkut aaAli,51 aathe aaPrivy aaCouncil aaleft aathe aaquestion
aaopen aawhether aain aaIndia, aapersons aainstituting aaa aasuit aaon aabehalf aaof aathe aapublic aacan
aabind aathe aapublic aaby aaa aacompromise aadecree. aaThe aaBombay aaHigh aaCourt aain
52
aaChiranjiLal aav aaLife aaInsurance aaCorpn aaof aaIndia aahas, aahowever, aaheld aathat aaa aaconsent
aadecree aamade aain aaa aarepresentative aasuit, aawhether aaunder aaO aa1, aar aa8 aaor aaunder aasec aa92
aaof aaCPC, aacould aabe aares aadedicated aaon aathe aaground aaof aaestoppel.

Public aaInterest aaLitigation: aaExplanation aaVI aaapplies aato aapublic aainterest aalitigation, aabut aait
aamust aabe aaproved aathat aathe aaprevious aalitigation aawas aaa aapublic aainterest aalitigation aaand
53
aanot aaby aaway aaof aaa aaprivate aagrievance.

In aaRural aaLitigation aaand aaEntitlement aaKendra aav aaState aaof aaUP54, aaSC aastated aathat,
aawhen aaa aamatter aaof aagrave aapublic aaimportance aais aafor aaconsideration aabefore aathe aacourt,
aaeven aaif aathere aais aaa aafinal aaorder aain aaa aadispute aaof aathe aatype aaunder aaconsideration, aait
aawould aabe aadifficult aato aaentertain aathe aaplea aaof aares aajudicata.

CONDITION aa3: aaLITIGATING aaUNDER aaTHE aaSAME aaTITLE

The aathird aacondition aaof aares aajudicata aais aathat aathe aaparties aato aathe aasubsequent aasuit aamust
aahave aalitigated aaunder aathe aasame aatitle aain aathe aasame aatitle aain aathe aaformer aasuit. aaThe
aaexpression aa'same aatitle' aameans aathe aa'same aacapacity'. aa'A aaverdict aaagainst aaa aaman aasuing
aain aaone aacapacity aawill aastop aahim aawhen aahe aasues aain aaanother aadistrict aacapacity, aaand, aain
aafact, aais aadifferent aaperson aain aalaw aa'Litigating aaunder aathe aasame aatitle' aahas aato aathe
aacapacity aaor aainterest aato aasue aaor aato aabe aasued aaeither aain aaone' aaown aainterest aaor aaas
aarepresenting aathe aainterest aaof aaothers aaalong aawith aaone's aainterest aaand aahas aanothing aato
aado aawith aathe aacause aaof aaaction aaon aathe aabasis aaof aawhich aaone aasues aaor aais aasued. aa“The
aarule aaof aares aajudicata aawill aanot aaapply aaif aathe aacapacity aaof aaa aaperson aais aadifferent aain
aathe aalatter aasuit."

A aalandlord's aapetition aato aaevict aaa aatenant aaon aathe aaground aathat aathe aaformer aarequired

50
AmritSagar aaGupta aav aaSudeshBehari, aaAIR aa1970 aaSC aa5
51
(1928) aa55 aaIA aa96.

52
aaAIR aa1952 aaBom aa396

53
Forward aaConstruction aaCo aa&Ors aav aaPrabhatMandal&Ors, aa(1986) aa1 aaSCC aa100
54
(1989) aaSupp aa1 aaSCC aa504
aapremises aafor aahis aaown aathought aadismissed, aadoes aanot aabar aaa aasubsequent aaapplication
aaby aahim aaif aanew aafacts aahave aaarisen. aaThe aawords aa'between aaparties aaunder aawhom aathey
aaor aaany aaof aathem aaclaim aalitigating aaoccupies, aaby aasuccession aathe aasame aaposition aaas aathe
aaformer aalitigation. aaThere aamay aabe aaa aasuccession aaby aathe aaordinary aarules aaof aainheritance
aaor aathe aaaction aaof aathe aasection aado aanot aamake aaany aadistinction aabetween aadifferent
aaforms aaof aasuccession. aaA aadegree aatherefore aaagainst aaa aasaranjamdar aaas aares aajudicata
55 56
aaagainst aahis aaheir aaand aasuccessor. aaSo aaalso aadecree aaagainst aaa aavatandar.

aa

CONDITION aa4: aaCOMPETENT aaCOURT

‘COURT aaOF aaCOMPETENT aaTO aaTRY aaSUCH aaSUBSEQUENT aaSUIT aaOR aaTHE aaSUIT
aaIN aaWHICH aaSUCH aaISSUE aaHAS aaBEEN aaSUBSEQUENTLY aaRAISED’

COURT aaOF aaCOMPETENT aaJURISDICTION

In aaorder aathat aaa aadecision aain aaa aaformer aasuit aamay aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata aain aaa
aasubsequent aasuit, aait aais aanecessary aathat aathe aacourt aawhich aatried aathe aaformer aasuit aamust
aahave aabeen aaa aacourt aacompetent aato aatry aathe aasubsequent aasuit. aaThe aacompetence aaof aaa
aacourt aamay aabe aalooked aaat aafrom aatwo aapoints aaof aaview;

(1) The aainternal aacompetence aaof aaa aacourt aa,depending aaupon aaprocedural aarules
aaapplicable aato aathat aacourt, aaand
(2) Competence aain aathe aainternational aasense, aameaning aajurisdiction aaover aathe aasubject
aamatter aaof aacontroversy aaand aajurisdiction aaover aathe aaparties aaas aarecognized aaby
aainternational aalaw.

WHERE aaTHE aaCOURT aaWHICH aaDECIDED aaTHE aaFORMER aaSUIT aaIS aaA aaCOURT
aaOF aaEXCLUSIVE aaJURISDICTION

If aaa aamatter aadirectly aaand aasubsequently aain aaissue aaa aaformer aasuit aahas aabeen aaadjudicated
aaupon aaby aaa aacourt aaof aaexclusive aajurisdiction aasuch aaas aaa aarevenue aacourt aaor aaa aasmall
aacause aacourt, aathe aaadjudication aawill aabar aathe aatrial aaof aathe aasame aamatter aain aaa
aasubsequent aasuit aaand aathe aadecision aarendered aaby aait aaoperates aaas aares aajudicata aain aaa
aasubsequent aajurisdiction aaas aawell aaas aasuit aain aaa aacivil aacourt.

COURT aaOF aaJURISDICTION aaCONCURRENT aaWITH aaTHAT aaOF aaTHE aaCOURT aaIN
aaWHICH aaTHE aaSUBSEQUENT aaSUIT aaIS aaBROUGHT

5555
aaMadhavrao aav aaAnusuyabai[1916] aaILR aa40 aaBom aa606, aa36 aaic aa505

56
aaRadhabai aav aaAnantrao aa(1885) aaILR aa9 aaBom aa198
In aaa aacase aawhere aathe aacourt aawhich aadecided aathe aaformer aasuit aawas aanot aaa aacourt aaof
aajurisdiction aaconcurrent aawith aathat aaof aathe aacourt aain aawhich aathe aasubsequent aasuit aais
aabrought, aathe aacourt aawhich aadecided aathe aaformer aasuit aacannot aabe aaa aacourt. aaIn aaa aacase
aawhere aathe aacourt aawhich aadecided aathe aaformer aasuit aawas aaa aacourt aaof aaconcurrent
aajurisdiction aathe aacourt aawhich aadecided aathe aaformer aasuit aamight aaor aamight aanot aahave
aabeen aa‘competent aato aatry aathe aasubsequent aasuit. aaThe aaconcurrent aajurisdiction aaincludes
aapecuniary aajurisdiction aaas aawell aaas aajurisdiction aaas aato aathe aasubject aa– aamatter aaof aathe
aasuit aa.The aacourt aawhich aadecided aathe aaearlier aasuit aaneed aanot aahave aaterritorial
aajurisdiction aato aatry aathe aasubsequent aasuit aain aawhich aathe aaplea aaof aares aajudicata aais
aaraised.

COMPETENCE aaOF aaTHE aaCOURT aaTO aaBE aaCONSIDERED aaAS aaOF aaTHE aaDATE
aaOF aaTHE aaFIRST aaSUIT

To aadetermine aasubsequent aawhether aathe aacourt aawhich aadecided aathe aaformer aasuit aahas aathe
aajurisdiction aato aatry aathe aasubsequent aasuit, aaregard aamust aabe aahad aato aathe aajurisdiction aaof
aathat aacourt aaat aathe aadate aaof aathe aa‘former’ aasuit, aaand aanot aato aaits aajurisdiction aaat aathe
aadate aaof aa‘subsequent’ aasuit. aaThe aaleading aacase aaon aathe aasubject aais aaGopi aaNath aav
aaBhugwat aaPerar. aaIn aathat aacase, aasuit aawas aabrought aain aathe aayear aa1860 aato aarecover
aacertain aaproperty aaof aawhich aathe aavalue aaat aathat aatime aawas aaless aathan aaRs. aa1000 aaand aa,
aatherefore aathe aaproper aacourt aato aatry aait aawas aathat aaof aathe aamunsiff. aaThe aamatter aadirectly
aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aain aaboth aathe aasuits aawas aathe aasuits aawas aathe aasame, aaand
aathe aaquestion aaarose aawhether aathe aadecision aaof aathe aamunsiff aain aathe aafirst aasuit aaoperated
aaas aares aajudicata aain aathe aasecond aasuit aain aathe aaconsequence aaof aathe aavalue aaof aathe
aaproperty aabeing aamore aathan aaRs. aa1000,his aadecision aacould aanot aahave aathe aaeffect aaof aares
aajudicata. aaBut aait aawas aaheld aathat aathe aadecision aaoperated aaas aares aajudicata aafor aaif aathe
aasecond aasuit aawas aainstituted aain aathe aayear aa1860, aathat aais aaat aatime aawhen aathe aafirst aasuit
aawas aabrought aa, aathe aamunsiff’s aacourt aawould aahave aabeen aacompetent aato aatry aait.

COURT aaOF aaLIMITED aaJURISDICTION

Limited aajurisdiction aaof aaa aacourt aamay aarelate aato aathe aasubject-matter aaor aathe aapecuniary
aalevel aasuch aaas aathe aasmall aacause aacourts aaand aathe aacourts aawith aalimited aapecuniary
aajurisdiction aaare aacourts aaof aalimited aajurisdiction. aaAdjudication aaon aaan aaissue aaby aaa
aacourt aaof aalimited aajurisdiction aashall aaoperates aaas aares aajudicata aain aaa aasubsequent aasuit
aabetween aathe aasame aaparties. aaExplanation aaVIII aaattaches aaa aafinality aato aaa aadecree aaof aaa
aacivil aacourt aaof aalimited aajurisdiction aaby aathe aaoperation aaof aathe aanon aaobstante aaclause aato
aaput aaan aaend aato aavexatious aalitigation, aathus aaestablishing aathe aaconclusiveness aaof aathe
aaissue aatried aaby aaa aacompetent aacourt aawhen aathe aasame aamatter aais aadirectly aaand
57
aasubstantially aain aaissue aain aaa aalatter aasuit aabetween aathe aasame aaparties aaor aatheir aaprivies.

CONDITION aa5: aaFINALITY

The aamatter aadirectly aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aain aathe aasubsequent aasuit aamust aahave
aabeen aaheard aaand aafinally aadecided aaby aathe aacourt aain aaformer aasuit.

HEARD aaAND aaFINALLY aaDECIDED

‘’Res aajudicata’’, aaby aaits aavery aawords, aameans aaa aamatter aaon aawhich aathe aacourt aahas
aaexercised aaits aajudicial aamind aaand aahas, aaafter aaargument aaand aaconsideration, aacome aato aaa
58
aadecision aaon aaa aacontested aamatter. aaTo aasupport aathe aaplea aaof aares aajudicata aait aais aanot
aaenough aathat aathe aasame aamatter aais aain aaissue, aait aais aaalso aaimportant aathat aathe aamatter
aahas aabeen aaheard aaand aafinally aadecided. aaThe aaexpression aa‘’heard aaand aafinally aadecided’
aa’refers aato aaa aamatter aaon aawhich aathe aacourt, aahaving aaexercised aaits aajudicial aamind, aahas
aarecorded aaa aafinding aaand aaarrived aaat aaa aadecision aaon aaa aacontest aamatter.

In aadealing aawith aaquestion aaunder aathe aapresent aahead aait aais aaimportant aato aanote aathat-

(1) aaIf aaa aadecree aais aaspecific, aaand aais aaat aavariance aawith aaa aastatement aain aathe aajudgment,
aaregard aamust aabe aahad aato aathe aadecree, aaand aanot aato aathe aastatement aain aathe aajudgment

(2) aaNeither aaan aaobiter aadictum aanor aaa aamere aaexpression aaof aaopinion aain aaa aajudgment
59
aahas aathe aaeffect aaof aares aajudicata.

(3) aaThat aawhen aaa aacourt aamerely aafor aathe aapurpose aaof aapreventing aaa aaremand aarecords
aaits aafinding aaon aaan aaissue aanot aanecessary aafor aathe aadecision aaof aathe aacase, aait aadoes aanot
60
aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata.

A aamatter aawill aabe aasaid aato aahave aabeen aa‘heard aaand aafinally aadecided’ aanotwithstanding
61
aathat aathe aaformer aasuit aadisposed aaof aain aaany aaof aathe aafollowing aaways;

57
aaSulochana aaAmma aav aaNarayanan aaAyyar aaAIR aa1994 aaSC aa152

58
aaGur aaPrasad aav aaGur aaPrasad aaAIR aa1944 aaOudh aa321; aaJenkins aav aaRoberston aa(1867) aaI aaHLSc

59
aaDevarakonda aav aadevarakonda aa(1881)ILR aa4 aaMad aa134; aaJamaitunnissa aav aalutfunnissa aa(1885)ILR aa7
aaALL aa606

60
aaPitchi aav aaBharata aa(1924) aa47 aaMad aaLj aa532, aa82 aaIC aa485, aaAIR aa1924 aaMad aa893.

61
aaAlso aasee aanote aa‘Liberty aato aabring aafresh aasuit’
However, aaif aathe aaformer aasuit aais aadismissed aawithout aaadjudication aaof aathe aamatter62 aaor
63
aaas aapremature aaor aaon aatechnical aagrounds aasuch aaas aawant aaof aajurisdiction aaof aathe
aacourt, aafor aanon-appearance aaof aathe aaplaintiff, aanon-joinder aaor aamis-joinder aaof aaparties,
aafor aafailure aato aafurnish aasecurity aafor aacosts, aafor aaimproper aavaluation, aaor aafor aawant aaof
64
aacause aaof aaaction, aathe aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata aawill aanot aaapply.

DECISION aaIN aaTHE aaFORMER aaSUIT aaMUST aaHAVE aaBEEN aaONE aaON aaMERITS

In aaorder aathat aaa aamatter aamay aabe aasaid aato aahave aabeen aaheard aaand aafinally aadecided, aathe
aadecision aain aathe aaformer aasuit aamust aahave aabeen aaone aaon aamerits. aaHence, aait aacould aanot
aabe aasaid aaof aaa aamatter aathat aait aawas aa‘heard aaand aafinally aadecided’, aaif aathe aaformer aasuit
aawas aadismissed-

 For aawant aaof aajurisdiction;

 For aadefault aaof aaplaintiff aa‘s aaappearance aaunder,65
 On aathe aaground aanon aa–jointer aaof aaparties,66 aa
 For aafailure aaon aathe aapart aaof aathe aapart aaof aathe aaplaintiff aato aaproduce
aaprobate aaor aaletters aaof aaadministration aaor aasuccession aacertificate aawhen aathe
67
aasame aais aarequired aaby aalaw aato aaentitle aathe aaplaintiff aato aaa aadecree; aaor

 For aafailure aaon aato aafurnish aasecurity aafor aacosts aaunder;68 aaor
 On aathe aaground aaof aaimproper aavaluation aa69 aaor aafor aafailure aato aapay
70
aaadditional aacourt aafee aaon aaa aaplaint aawhich aawas aaundervalued; aaor

62
aaState aaof aaMaharastra aav aaNational aaconstruction aaCo, aaBombay aaAIR aa1996 aaSC2367.Osman aaUmar aav
aaMalal aaAlibhai aanathu aa(1996 aa) aa7 aaSCC aa531.

63
aaShedan aasingh aav aaDaryao aaKumar aaAIR aa1966 aaSC aa1332; aaState aaof aaUttar aaPradesh aav aaRupal
aasharma aaAIR aa1997 aaSC aa697.

64
aaLakshman aav aaRamchandra aa(1881) aaILR aa5 aaBom aa48, aa7 aaIA aa18;Putali aav aaTulja aa(1879) aaILR aa3
aaBom aa562; aaRam aaGovind aaJha aav aaMungur aaRam aa(1883) aa13 aaCLR aa83; aaAbdul aaKadir aav aaDoolanbibi
aa(1913) aaILR aa27 aaBom aa563, aa20 aaIC aa530. aaAlso aasee aas aa44 aaEvidence aaAct aa1872; aaPhuluwa aav
aalakshmichand aaAIR aa1960 aaMP aa138.

65
aaKempegowda aav aaAnnagowda aaAIR aa1951 aaMys aa48

66
aaSheosagar aav aaSitaram aa(1897) aaILR aa24 aaCal aa616, aa24 aaIA aa50; aaSankara aav aaDevaki aa( aa1922)m aa43
aaMad aaLJ aa572, aa73 aaIC aa491,AIR aa
1922 aaMad aa259

67
aaJanakdular aav aaAmbika aaPrasad aa(1917) aa2 aaPat aaLJ aa313. aa39 aaIC aa126

68
aaHariram aav aaLalbai aa(1902) aaILR aa18 aaMad aa446
  For aawant aaof aaa aacause aaof aaaction;71 aaor
 For aawant aaof aanotice;72 aaor aa
 On aathe aaground aathat aait aais aapremature;73

THE aaDECISION aaMUST aaHAVE aaBEEN aaNECESSARY

A aamatter aadirectly aaand aasubstantially aain aaissue aacannot aabe aasaid aato aahave aabeen aa‘heard
aaand aafinally aadecided’ aaunless aathe aafinding aaon aathe aaissue aawas aanecessary aato aathe
aadetermination aaof aathe aasuit. aaIt aais aathe aaright aaof aaappeal aawhich aaindicates aawhether aaa
aafinding aawas aaincidental aaor aanecessary. aaUnder aathe aaExplanation’s aaVII aaadded aaby aathe
aaAmendment aaAct aa1976 aathis aasection aais aaextended aato aaexecution aaproceedings. aaThis
aaleads aato aathe aafollowing aatwo aarules-

aaRULE aaI

If aathe aaplaintiff’s aasuit aais aawholly aadismissed, aano aaissue aadecided aaagainst aathe
aadefendant aacan aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata aaagainst aahim, aain aaa aasubsequent aasuit,
aafor aahe aacannot aaappeal aafrom aaa aafinding aaon aaany aasuch aaissue aaas aathe aadecree aais
74
aawholly aain aahis aafavor , aahowever, aaevery aaissue aadecided aais aawholly aain aahis
aafavor.

ILLUSTRATION:

In aaa aasuit aaby aaA aaagainst aaB aafor aaejectment, aaB aacontents aa(a) aathat aano aanotice aato aaquit
aawas aagiven, aaand aa(b) aathe aaland, aahe aais aanot aaliable aato aabe aaevicted aaat aaall. aaA
aaafterwards aasues aaB aato aaevict aahim aafrom aathe aaland aaafter aagiving aanotice aato aaB.The
aafinding aain aathe aafirst aasuit aathat aasuite aasame aathat aathe aaland aadoes aanot aaoperate aaas aares
aajudicata aaso aaas aato aapreclude aaB aafrom aaraising aathe aasame aacontention aain aathe aasubsequent
aasuit, aathe aareason aabeing aathat aaA aasuit aahaving aabeen aadismissed, aaB aacould aanot aahave
aaapplied aafrom aathe aafinding aathat aathe aaland aawas aanot aamajhes aaland.The aacourt aahaving
aafound aain aathe aafirst aasuit aathat aaA aahad aanot aagiven aathe aanotice aato aaquit, aait aawas aanot
aanecessary aafor aathe aadetermination aaof aathe aasuit aato aadecide aawhether aathe aaland aawas
aamajhes aaland aaor aanot. aaThe aafirst aasuit aawas aadismissed aainspite aaof aathe aafinding aain aaA’s
aafavour aathat aathe aaland aawas aanot aamajhes aaland. aaIf,in aaabove aaillustration, aaB aahad aanot

69
aaDallbah aav aaNarayan aa(1868) aa4 aaBom aaHC aaAC aa110
aa70 aaVenkata aaNarishiman aaReddy aav aaKonda aaReddy aaAIR aa1951 aaHyd aa55
aa71 aaHarihar aav aaChandra aakumar aa(1918) aa23 aaCWN aa91, aa49 aaIC aa79
72
aaRamaswami aav aaMuradai aa(1924) aaILR aa47 aaMad aa453, aa84 aaIC aa622, aaAIR aa1924 aaMad aa469
73
aaRamireddi aav aaSubbareddi aa(1889) aaILR aa12 aaMad aa500
74
aaMunshi aaAbdul aaRahim aav aaFakir aaMohammad aa1946 aaILR aaNag aa518, aaAIR aa1946 aaNag aa401; aaRun
aaBahadur aav aaLucho aaKoer aa(1885) aaILR aaII aaCal aa301, aa306, aa12 aaIA aa23, aa34; aa
aaraised aathe aadefence aathat aathe aaland aawas aamajhes aaland aain aathe aafirst aasuit, aawould aahe aabe
aaprecluded aafrom aaraising aathat aadefence aain aathe aasecond aasuit, aawould aahe aabe aaprecluded
aafrom aaraising aathat aadefence aain aathe aasecond aasuit aaon aathe aaground aathat aahe aamight aaand
aaought aato aahave aaraised aathat aadefence aain aathe aafirst aasuit? aaNo aathe aareason aabeing aathat
aawhen aaa aapoint aaof aadefence aathat aahas aabeen aaactually aaraised aaand aadisallowed aacannot
aaoperate aaas aasuch aa, aawhen aait aahas aanot aabeen aaraised aaat aaall aathough aait aamight aaand
aaought aato aahave aabeen aaraised. aaConstructive aares aajudicata aacannot aaoperate aabecause aathe
aadefendant aacould aanot aahave aaappealed aaagainst aa,a aafavourable aafinding aaon aathe aaissue
aaactually aaraised.

RULE aaII

If aathe aaplaintiff’s aasuit aais aadecided aain aaits aaentirety, aano aaissue aadecided aaagainst aathe
aaplaintiff aacan aabe aares aajudicata, aaFor aathe aaplaintiff aacannot aaappeal aafrom aaa aafinding aaon
aaany aasuch aaissue, aathe aadecree aabeing aawholly aain aahis aafavour. aaHowever, aaevery aaissue
aadecided aaagainst aathe aadefendant aais aares aajudictata. aaFor aathe aadefendant aacan aaappeal aafrom
aaa aafinding aaon aasuch aaissue, aathe aadecree aabeing aaagainst aahim.

FINALITY aaOF aaDECREE aaIN aaREDEMPTION aaSUITS

If aathe aamortgagor aafiles aaa aasuit aafor aaredemption aaand aano aaorder aafor aaforeclosure
aaextinguishing aathe aaright aaof aaredemption aain aadefault aaof aapayment aais aamade, aathe
aapreliminary aadecree aafor aadoes aanot aahave aathat aaeffect. aaThe aaright aaof aaredemption
aacontinues aauntil aaa aadecree aaabsolute aafor aaforeclosure aais aapassed, aathe aasale aais aaconfirmed.

WHERE aaA aaDECREE aaIS aaAPPEAL aaFROM, aaIT aaIS aaTHE aaAPPELLATE aaDECREE
aaTHAT aaMUST aaBE aaLOOKED aaINTO aaDETERMINE aaTHE aaQUESTION aaOF aaRES
aaJUDICATA, aaAND aaNOT aaTHE aaDECREE aaAPPEALED aaFROM

A aadecision aaliable aato aaappeal aamay aabe aa‘’final’ aawithin aathe aameaning aaof aathis aasection
aauntil aathe aaappeal aais aapreferred. aaBut aaonce aathe aaappeal aaonce aathe aaappeal aais aafiled, aathe
aadecision aaloses aaits aacharacter aaof aa‘’finality’’, aaand aawhat aawas aaonce aares aajudicata aaagain
aabecomes aares aasubjudice, aathat aais aamatter aaunder aajudicial aainquiry.

IF aaONLY aaA aaPART aaOF aaA aaDECREE aaIS aaAPPEALED aaFROM, aaTHE aaREST aaOF
aaTHE aaDECREE aaMAY aaBECOME aaFINAL aaAND aaOPERATE aaAS aaRES aaJUDICATA
The aadefendant aahad aaobtained aaa aadecree aaon aaa aamortgage, aaThe aaplaintiff aawho aahad aapaid
aaoff aaa aaprior aamortgage aafiled aaa aasuit aaclaiming aato aabe aasubrogated aato aathe aaprior
aamortgagee aaand aato aarecover aathe aaamount aahe aahad aapaid, aafrom aathe aadefendant, aaThe
aaoriginal aacourt aafound aathat aathe aaplaintiff aawas aasubrogated aaand aaawarded aahim aathe
aaprincipal aasum aahe aahad aapaid, aawith aainterest. aaThe aadefendant aaclaimed aain aaappeal aathat
aathe aaplaintiff aawas aanot aaentitled aato aainterest. aaThe aadefendant aacould aanot aaon aasecond
aaappeal aadispute aaplaintiff’s aaright aaof aasubrogation aawhich aawas aares aajudicata aaby aareason
aaof aathe aadecree aaof aathe aaoriginal aacourt, aathat aapart aawhich aahad aanot aabeen aaappealed
aaagainst.

CONSENT aaDECREE aaAND aaESTOPPEL

Law aacommission aaof aaIndia aain aaits aa144th aareport aahad aarecommended aathat aathe aamatter
aaof aaconsent aadegree aais aaof aarelevance. aaIt aahad aabeen aasubjected aato aacontroversies aathat
aawhether aares aajudicata aaapplies aato aaconsent aadecree aaand aathere aaare aadifferent aaviews
aaregarding aait. aaTherefore aathe aacommission aarecommended aato aaadd aaexplanation aain aathis
aasection aawith aarespect aato aait. aaThe aapresent aastatus aais aathat aathe aasection aadoes aanot aaapply,
aato aaconsent aadecrees aafor. aaIt aacannot aabe aasaid aain aathe aacase aaof aasuch aadecrees aathat aathe
aamatters aain aaissue aabetween aathe aaparties aa‘’have aabeen aaheard aaand aafinally aadecided’
aa’within aathe aameaning aaof aathe aasection. aaA aacompromise aadecree, aaif aanot aavitiated aaby
aafraud, aamisrepresentation, aamisunderstanding aaor aamistake aais aabinding aaand aaoperates aaas
aajudicata aaas aaalso aaestoppel aabetween aathe aaparties

EXECUTION aaPROCEEDINGS:

Explanation aaVII aainserted aaby aathe aaAmendment aaAct, aa1976 aamade aaapplicable aain aaexpress
aaterm aathe aaprovisions aaof aas aa11 aato aaexecutive aaproceedings aaand aaalso aaprovide aaan
aaartificial aaconstruction aaby aalayingdown aathat aareferences aain aathe aasection aato aaany aasuit,
aaissue aaor aaformer aasuit aashall aabe aaconstructed aaas aareferences aarespectively aato aaa
aaproceeding aafor aathe aaexecution aaof aathe aadegree, aaquestion aaarising aain aasuch aaproceeding
aaand aaa aaformer aaproceeding aafor aathe aaexecution aaof aathat aadecree. aa

In aaRam aaKirpal aav aaRup aaKuari75, aait aahas aabeen aaheld aathat aas aa11 aais aanot aaexhaustive aaand
aathe aaprinciple aaof aares aa
Judicata aastill aaremained aadistinct aafrom aathe aalimited aaprovisions aaof aathe aasection. aaThe
aaPrivy aaCouncil aaheld aathat aathough aathe aasection aafrom aathe aalimited aaprovisions aaof aathe
aasection. aaThe aaPrivy aaCouncil aaheld aathat aathough aathe aasection aain aaterms aadid aanot aaapply
aato aaexecution aaproceedings, aathe aaprinciple aaof aares aajudicata aaapplied aato aasuch
aaproceedings.

In aaanother aacase, aaKamakshi aaAmmal aav aaChockalinga aaThevar76, aathe aacourt aaheld aathat,
aabefore aait aabars aathe aaparty aaon aathe aaground aaof aaconstructive aares aajudicata aamust aasatisfy

75
aa(1883) aa11 aaIA aa37, aa6 aaALL aa269
aaitself aathat aathe aaparty aahad aanotice aaof aathe aapoint aawhich aawas aalikely aato aabe aadecided
aaagainst aahim.

EXCEPTIONS aaTO aaRES aaJUDICATA

There aaare aafollowing aacertain aaexceptions aato aathis aadoctrine:

1. Waiver aaof aaplea aaof aares aajudicata

The aaplea aaof aares aajudicata aais aanot aaone aawhich aaaffects aathe aajurisdiction aaof aathe aacourt.
aaIt aais aaa aaplea aain aabar aawhich aaa aaparty aamay aawaive. aaIf aaa aaparty aadoes aanot aaraise aathe
77
aaplea aaof aares aajudicata aait aawill aabe aadeemed aato aabe aaa aamatter aadirectly aaand
aasubstantially aain aaissue aaand aadecided aaagainst aahim.” aa
78

2. Interlocutory aaOrder

An aainterlocutory aaorder aagiven aaby aathe aacourt aain aaan aaearlier aastage aaof aasuit aadoes aanot
aabar aaa aahigher aacourt aafrom aaconsidering aait aaat aaa aalater aastage aaof aathe aasame aasuit aaeven
aaif aathere aais aano aaappeal. aaThe aareason aais aathat aaan aainterlocutory aaorder aais aapassed aain
aathe aacourse aaof aathe aasuit aaand aadoes aanot aadec aaany aaquestion aarlating aato aathe aamerit aaof
aathe aacase aaand aacan aabe aaaltered aaor aavaried aaby aasubsequent aaapplication aafor aathe aasame
79
aarelief. aa

3. aaDismissal aaof aaearlier aaSLP

If aaa aaspecial aaleave aapetition aais aadismissed aawithout aaspeaking aaorder aathen aait aawill
aa not aa constitute aares aajudicata. aaIf aa the aa former aa suit aa is aa dismissed aa without aa any
aa adjudication aa on aa the aa matter aa in aa issue aamerely aaon aaa aatechnical aaground aaof aanon-
joinder aathen aathat aacannot aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata. aaThe aabar aaunder aathis aasection
aa applies aaonly aa if aathe aa matter aadirectly aa and aa substantially aa in aaissue aain aathe aaformer

76
aa(1969) aa2 aaMLI aa593
77
aaMedapati aasurayya aav.tondapu aabala aagangadhara aaAIR aa1948PC3 aaAt aap.7

78
aaMoturi aaPrasad aaSarjoo aaJaiswal aav aaDossibai aaNB aaAIR aa1971 aaSC aa2355

79
aaArjun aaSingh aav aaMohinder aakumar aaAIR aa1964 aaSC aa993
aasuit, aahas aabeen aaheard aaand aafinally aadecided aaby aaa aaCourt aacompetent aato aatry aasuch
aasuit. aaMeaning aathereby aaon aathe aamatter aaor aaissue aain aaquestion aathere aahas aabeen aaan
aaapplication aaof aathe aajudicial aamind aaand aaa aafinal aaadjudication aamade.

4. Cause aaof aaAction

A aasecond aasuit aais aanot aabarred, aawhere aathe aacause aaof aaaction aain aathe aasubsequent aasuit aais
aadifferent aafrom aathe aaearlier aasuit. aaAlso aasecond aasuit aais aanot aabarred aawhere aathe aacause aaof
aaaction aain aathe aapresent aasuit aawas aanot aain aaexistence aain aathe aaearlier aasuit. aaFor aaex- aasuing
aafor aaeviction aaon aadifferent aaground.

5. Judgement aaobtained aaby aaFraud aaor aaCollusion

Fraud aais aaan aaextrinsic aacollateral aaact aawhich aavitiates aathe aamost aasolemn aaproceedings aaof
80
aaCourt aaof aaJustice. aaTherefore aaa aajudgement aaobtained aaby aafraus aaor aacollision aacannot
aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata. aaAlso aaif aait aais aaobtained aaby aacollusion, aadoctrine aaof aares
aajudicata aashall aanot aaapply.

6. Incompetency aaof aajurisdiction

A aadecree aaor aaa aajudgment aapassed aaby aaa aacourt aawhich aaerred aain aajurisdiction aaor aawas
aaincompetent aato aadecide aaon aasuch aamatter aawill aanot aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata aain aathe
aasubsequent aasuit aainvolving aasame aamatter.

7. Change aaof aaLaw

When aaas aaa aaresult aaof aaa aachange aain aalaw, aanew aarights aaare aaconferred aaon aaparties, aasuch
aarights aaare aanot aabarred aaby aares aajudicata, aaby aadecisions aagiven aabefore aathe aanew aalaw
81
aacame aainto aaforce.

CONCLUSION: aa

Section aa11 aaembodies aathe aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata aawhich aameans aathat aaa aafinal
aajudgment aaof aaa aacompetent aacourt aaof aalaw aamay aanot aabe aadisputed aaon aathe aaissue aait aahas
aafinally aasettled aaby aathe aaparties aaor aatheir aasuccessors aain aathe aasubsequent aalegal
aaproceedings. aaIn aaother aawords, aait aaenacts aathe aarule aaof aaconclusiveness aaof aajudgments aaas
aato aathe aapoint aadecided, aain aaevery aasubsequent aasuit aabetween aathe aasame aaparties.At aathe
82
aasame aatime aait aahas aaalso aabeen aaclarified aain aaHameeda aaBegum aav aaChampa aaBai aaJain
aathat aainterpretation aaof aalaw aain aaprevious aacase aawill aanot aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata aain aacase

80
aaIbid aaat aa25
81
aaRamdeo aav aaBoard aaof aaRevenue aaAIR aa1965 aaSC aa948
82
aaAIR aa
2009 aa(NOC) aa2693 aa(MP-DB)
aathere aais aaa aafresh aacause aaof aaaction. aaThe aarule aaof aares aajudicata aais aaintended aanot aaonly aato
aaprevent aaa aanew aadecision aabut aaalso aato aaprevent aaa aanew aainvestigation aaso aathat aathe aasame
aaperson aacannot aabe aaharassed aaagain aaand aaagain aain aavarious aaproceedings aaupon aathe aasame
aaquestion. aaThe aaprinciple aaof aafinality aaof aares aajudicata aais aaa aamatter aaof aapublic aapolicy.

aa

CONCLUSION:

From aathe aaabove aaanalysis aa

 Principle aaof aaRes aaJudicata aadoes aanot aaapply aato aadecisions aagiven aaper aaIncuriam.
 Decisions aagiven aaper aaIncuriam aado aanot aahave aaany aaprecedential aavalue.
 When aano aarelevant aaprovision aaof aathe aaconstitution aaor aaany aastatue aais aaleft aaout
aafor aaconsideration aaas aaregards aaa aajudgment aadelivered, aathen aain aasuch aaa aacase aathe
aajudgment aadelivered, aacannot aabe aatermed aaas aaper aaIncuriam.
 If aacase aaX aadid aanot aaconsider aaa aabinding aadecision aai.e aacase aaY, aabut aadid aanot
aaconsider aaanother aacase aai.e aacase aaZ aawhich aahad aaconsidered aathe aasaid aabinding
 aaprecedent aai.e aacase aaY, aathen aain aasuch aaa aacase, aathe aaview aataken aain aacase aaX
aacannot aabe aasaid aato aabe aaper aaIncuriam.

Section aa11 aaembodies aathe aadoctrine aaof aares aajudicata aawhich aameans aathat aaa aafinal aajudgment
aaof aaa aacompetent aacourt aaof aalaw aamay aanot aabe aadisputed aaon aathe aaissue aait aahas aafinally
aasettled aaby aathe aaparties aaor aatheir aasuccessors aain aathe aasubsequent aalegal aaproceedings. aaIn
aaother aawords, aait aaenacts aathe aarule aaof aaconclusiveness aaof aajudgments aaas aato aathe aapoint
aadecided, aain aaevery aasubsequent aasuit aabetween aathe aasame aaparties. aaAt aathe aasame aatime aait
83
aahas aaalso aabeen aaclarified aain aaHameeda aaBegum aav aaChampa aaBai aaJain aathat
aainterpretation aaof aalaw aain aaprevious aacase aawill aanot aaoperate aaas aares aajudicata aain aacase
aathere aais aaa aafresh aacause aaof aaaction. aaThe aarule aaof aares aajudicata aais aaintended aanot aaonly aato
aaprevent aaa aanew aadecision aabut aaalso aato aaprevent aaa aanew aainvestigation aaso aathat aathe aasame
aaperson aacannot aabe aaharassed aaagain aaand aaagain aain aavarious aaproceedings aaupon aathe aasame
aaquestion. aaThe aaprinciple aaof aafinality aaof aares aajudicata aais aaa aamatter aaof aapublic aapolicy.

83
aaAIR aa2009 aa(NOC) aa2693 aa(MP-DB)